Palmieri’s post was meant to clarify that ThinkProgress blogs don’t speak for the entire institution all the time — as has always been the policy. And that’s a good thing, because it means we are afforded great editorial independence to convey our honest views. Some of the criticisms of this incident are fair, but some are not.

The point that is getting lost in this debate is the fact that Palmieri’s post underscores our editorial independence, not diminishes it.

Suffice it to say that there was internal disagreement about the issue of Third Way’s effectiveness. At a different institution under different circumstances, Matt Yglesias would have had to submit his criticism of Third Way to be approved by higher-ups prior to publishing his post. Here at the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), however, he was given the opportunity to issue his criticism, and then allowed Palmieri an opportunity to issue a different opinion. That made for a transparent and open debate. And it’s something we’ve donea few timesin the past.

The ThinkProgress blogs will oftentimes write items that are bolder, more strident, or more critical than what others here at the institution may be comfortable with. In my experience over the past four years here at CAPAF, that editorial freedom has allowed ThinkProgress to be on the leading edge of breaking news and analysis. And rest assured, we’ll continue to speak our mind freely.